Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

dogma wrote:I was wrong about the absence of a need to make notification of military necessity, though I imagine the administration will argue that the report from May 20th is tacit to such a statement, so thanks for the correction.

The "military necessity" is likely a low burden, given that there are no restrictions on the necessity. "Compelling national interest" is probably sufficient.

dogma wrote:But, your interpretation is incorrect. After 60 days the President is supposed to terminate the use of US forces as stipulated in his initial notification. That doesn't mean withdrawing them per se, it means "stop doing what you said you were doing." This deadline may be extended by 30 days if the President deems it necessary for the safety of military personnel, at which the President must order an end to hostilities; which, again, doesn't mean withdrawing troops per se.

The actual language is "the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted." Here, the "use of the US Armed Forces" was the Libyan operation as I'm pretty sure that the "use" is not specific to the type of engagement.

dogma wrote:Interestingly, the administration could submit another report to Congress arguing that we are no engaged in a separate military action with the goal of supporting a regime change in order to gain another 60 days.

Or, he could simply ignore the law. Because the law is a power play between Congress and the President and the Judiciary won't act as a tiebreaker.

The only question is, how far is Congress willing to go? Given the last few decades it is more likely that Congress will balk before the President does.

You know when i said British politics was also confusing?
I was wrong this is way more confusing than our system...

Kilkrazy wrote:Who is the enemy in this war?

Boredom and complacency.

Ahtman wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Who is the enemy in this war?

Boredom and complacency.

Also the person trying to put holes in you and your mates.

dogma wrote:
Considering that I do this kind of analysis for a living it might be better if you don't assume I get my news from television.

Doesn't detract from my point. What the man said/says and what he did/does are not remotely the same thing. He talks like a liberal and acts like a conservative. I was trying to be ironic there and obviously failed.

dogma wrote:I don't see how that makes him a conservative. To me it looks like he's a left-of-center President who took what he could get in areas of interest to him, and let the rest unfold as it had previously.

It depends on perspective. He might appear left of center to you but be a stout conservative to others; we're talking about arbitrary labels unless there's a law, written in stone, that defines exactly what actions one takes to make them liberal, conservative or any other shade of that spectrum.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:This thread is about the "how" of the issue, not the "why". If you really want to bemoan the fact that a few thousand civilians weren't killed, please do so in another thread.

Uh, a few thousand civilians were killed. I guess they don't count because they're not 'merican.

biccat wrote:
The actual language is "the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted." Here, the "use of the US Armed Forces" was the Libyan operation as I'm pretty sure that the "use" is not specific to the type of engagement.

It must be, otherwise you end up in a situation where placing naval assets in the Mediterranean is governed by War Powers.

biccat wrote:
Or, he could simply ignore the law. Because the law is a power play between Congress and the President and the Judiciary won't act as a tiebreaker.

The only question is, how far is Congress willing to go? Given the last few decades it is more likely that Congress will balk before the President does.

Especially since this particular Congress has a definite stake in appearing favorable towards the military, and the promotion of democracy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

agnosto wrote:
Doesn't detract from my point. What the man said/says and what he did/does are not remotely the same thing.

What has he done which is explicitly in opposition to what he's said, excepting the Gitmo closure?

agnosto wrote:
It depends on perspective. He might appear left of center to you but be a stout conservative to others; we're talking about arbitrary labels unless there's a law, written in stone, that defines exactly what actions one takes to make them liberal, conservative or any other shade of that spectrum.

Well, no, not really. Conservatism isn't the end of a spectrum, its a political ideology with a defined set of values and principles. Obama doesn't exhibit many of them, even by per the wonky liberal conservatism that prevails in the US. Between DADT, healthcare, the bailouts, an emphasis on public works, and diplomacy Obama is pretty clearly a progressive with an ecumenical view on economics, which is basically what we mean when we call someone a liberal in the US.

Obama is neither very liberal, nor very conservative, which is basically how most Presidents are.

dogma wrote:Well, no, not really. Conservatism isn't the end of a spectrum, its a political ideology with a defined set of values and principles. Obama doesn't exhibit many of them, even by per the wonky liberal conservatism that prevails in the US. Between DADT, healthcare, the bailouts, an emphasis on public works, and diplomacy Obama is pretty clearly a progressive with an ecumenical view on economics, which is basically what we mean when we call someone a liberal in the US. Obama is neither very liberal, nor very conservative, which is basically how most Presidents are.

Increase capital gains and dividend taxes on high earners and a whole slew of similar promises and all the nonsense about helping the middle class. ----> Signed a bill that extended the Bush tax breaks for the wealthy.

Then there was that whole thing about transparency in government and putting bills up for public commentary.... ---> yeah, didn't happen; in fact less transparent thant under G.W.

Gonna reform immigration. ----> Higher federal raids and more extraditions than under Bush.

Human mission to the moon by 2020. ----> Cut NASA funding by a boatload.

Reduce earmarks to 1994 levels. ------> Uh, uh, no dice; not even with a Democrat controlled congress, in fact earmarks have grown.

No family making less than $250,000 will see "any form of tax increase." -------> tanning tax, cigarette tax...etc. Makes me almost yearn for the days of the "Read my lips, no new taxes." and I hated both of the Bushes with a burning passion.

There's more, much more but not all of them are in "opposition" to what he said, he simply didn't do it. I guess we should be used to politicians lying and we shouldn't get our hopes up but then again "hope" was one of his catch phrases. I voted for him and my hope has turned to ashes along with many other Americans as we just watch business as usual in D.C.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-broken/?page=2

agnosto wrote:
Increase capital gains and dividend taxes on high earners and a whole slew of similar promises and all the nonsense about helping the middle class. ----> Signed a bill that extended the Bush tax breaks for the wealthy.

Obama proposed an increased capital gains tax, it was in his budget proposal for 2011, Congress didn't sign it into law. Additionally, the Bush tax cuts were extended, but the reduction in the effective rate of the AMT means that they are no longer for what would conventionally be called the wealthy. He does still talk about raising taxes on the wealthy, though that would obviously have to pass Congress first. In either case, despite the political football that the tax cuts are, I would place him in the liberal camp here.

agnosto wrote:
Then there was that whole thing about transparency in government and putting bills up for public commentary.... ---> yeah, didn't happen; in fact less transparent thant under G.W.

I would say its about the same, but in either case transparency isn't related to political ideology.

agnosto wrote:
Gonna reform immigration. ----> Higher federal raids and more extraditions than under Bush.

That can be interpreted as a type of reform, though it would be the sort of reform favored by conservatives.

agnosto wrote:
Human mission to the moon by 2020. ----> Cut NASA funding by a boatload.

Not related to political ideology.

agnosto wrote:
Reduce earmarks to 1994 levels. ------> Uh, uh, no dice; not even with a Democrat controlled congress, in fact earmarks have grown.

Not a particularly conservative or liberal issue.

Additionally, being committed to doing something is not the same as promising to do it. This is politics, you have to pay attention to what is actually said.

agnosto wrote:
No family making less than $250,000 will see "any form of tax increase." -------> tanning tax, cigarette tax...etc. Makes me almost yearn for the days of the "Read my lips, no new taxes." and I hated both of the Bushes with a burning passion.

That's behavior which is consistent with American liberal politics, though it is certainly a broken promise.

agnosto wrote:
There's more, much more but not all of them are in "opposition" to what he said, he simply didn't do it. I guess we should be used to politicians lying and we shouldn't get our hopes up but then again "hope" was one of his catch phrases. I voted for him and my hope has turned to ashes along with many other Americans as we just watch business as usual in D.C.

This was a conversation about whether or not Obama was a liberal or conservative, not whether or not he made promises and later broke them, and how voters tend to infer promises from statements that aren't actually promises.

Also, let's be clear, breaking a promise isn't the same thing as telling a lie.

dogma wrote:This was a conversation about whether or not Obama was a liberal or conservative, not whether or not he made promises and later broke them, and how voters tend to infer promises from statements that aren't actually promises.

Also, let's be clear, breaking a promise isn't the same thing as telling a lie.

We could go round and round with me defending my point of view and you finding holes in it but really that's all it would be. I have an opinion, I expressed it, you can agree or not as you will. My point was that he is more conservative now than when he was running for office. You made a valid point earlier when you stated that most presidents do lean towards the middle after some time in office, there's really no other way they can work within our system of government and it works to some extent. I guess that I, like many others, feel a little burned; we went to the bar and drank a keg of "hope" and woke up next to a 3-legged donkey with nothing to show for it but a raging hangover and a sore posterior.

What is a lie to you then? Obviously there's no way we can say for certain that he never had any intention on keeping some of his "promises", so are they lies or just broken promises? Either way, he didn't perform the actions that he promised but in all honesty, no politicians do (at least that I'm aware of).

I'll bow out at this point as this is no longer about the war powers act.

agnosto wrote:
You made a valid point earlier when you stated that most presidents do lean towards the middle after some time in office, there's really no other way they can work within our system of government and it works to some extent. I guess that I, like many others, feel a little burned; we went to the bar and drank a keg of "hope" and woke up next to a 3-legged donkey with nothing to show for it but a raging hangover and a sore posterior.

Yeah, the unfortunate thing is that getting people excited about politics tends to inspire unrealistic expectations, but getting people excited about politics is about the only way to make them vote.

agnosto wrote:
What is a lie to you then? Obviously there's no way we can say for certain that he never had any intention on keeping some of his "promises", so are they lies or just broken promises? Either way, he didn't perform the actions that he promised but in all honesty, no politicians do (at least that I'm aware of).

If I tell you that I believe X, and I in fact believe Y, then I'm lying. Likewise, if you ask me a question about something, and I omit a particularly important fact about the thing, then I'm lying.

dogma wrote:It must be, otherwise you end up in a situation where placing naval assets in the Mediterranean is governed by War Powers.

Touche

But like I said, war powers vs. right to declare war is an ongoing power struggle between the President and Congress.

I'd also mention that the WPA wasn't enacted until 1973, so there wasn't any statutory violation.

dogma wrote:Especially since this particular Congress has a definite stake in appearing favorable towards the military, and the promotion of democracy.

Ultimately it depends on who frames the issue. Obviously the DNC will prefer to call such a move "anti-military" while the GOP would prefer to call it "enforcing the law."

biccat wrote:
But like I said, war powers vs. right to declare war is an ongoing power struggle between the President and Congress.

Right, and that means its basically decided by opinion polls, well it is now that we have opinion polls. Considering Boehner's numbers (Congress as a whole will always lose to the President) I will reiterate my prior claim that Obama is going to take this one.

biccat wrote:
I'd also mention that the WPA wasn't enacted until 1973, so there wasn't any statutory violation.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

Damn it Jim, I'm a logician, not a lawyer!

biccat wrote:
Ultimately it depends on who frames the issue. Obviously the DNC will prefer to call such a move "anti-military" while the GOP would prefer to call it "enforcing the law."

Unfortunately "enforcing the law" tends to be a weak claim when either international affairs, or the military come into focus. I'm thinking back to things like Gitmo, and really Iraq as well, which weren't necessarily illegal but which were sold on necessity of the "hang the law" sort.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
I'd also mention that the WPA wasn't enacted until 1973, so there wasn't any statutory violation.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

Damn it Jim, I'm a logician, not a lawyer!

I assumed you were referring to the "White Fleet" incident with Teddy Roosevelt. Congress refused to fund an "around the world" trip of the US Navy, but Roosevelt, as CinC, had the authority to send them out anyway.

Congress decided to fund the expedition in order to get the ships back.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
Ultimately it depends on who frames the issue. Obviously the DNC will prefer to call such a move "anti-military" while the GOP would prefer to call it "enforcing the law."

Unfortunately "enforcing the law" tends to be a weak claim when either international affairs, or the military come into focus. I'm thinking back to things like Gitmo, and really Iraq as well, which weren't necessarily illegal but which were sold on necessity of the "hang the law" sort.

Well, it's only tangentially an international/military issue, and the Republicans could frame the issue as a "checks and balances" issue.

And if I recall correctly, Obama made a big point during his presidential campaign about the "changing the course" on Gitmo and Iraq. They undoubtedly helped him defeat McCain.

biccat wrote:
I assumed you were referring to the "White Fleet" incident with Teddy Roosevelt. Congress refused to fund an "around the world" trip of the US Navy, but Roosevelt, as CinC, had the authority to send them out anyway.

Congress decided to fund the expedition in order to get the ships back.

Ah, I see, I was referring to the deployment of ships to the Mediterranean as regards the Libya incident, and really really just troop movements into hostile situations in general.

What you thought I was talking about is far more witty though.

biccat wrote:
Well, it's only tangentially an international/military issue, and the Republicans could frame the issue as a "checks and balances" issue.

I don't know, I think the military is central to the matter, it is a War Powers issue after all. Though you're right, it could be framed that way.

biccat wrote:
And if I recall correctly, Obama made a big point during his presidential campaign about the "changing the course" on Gitmo and Iraq. They undoubtedly helped him defeat McCain.

Sure, but this is a different issue, and one can reliably conclude that the American public isn't bright enough to connect the two.